The models the IPCC used in their report. This graphic shows the simulated forcings of TSI, Volcanism, Well mixed GHGs, ozone, aerosol and the sum of all of the forcings combined. Note that the Greenhouse Signature as PREDICTED by the models looks TOTALLY different than if it were forced by the sun.

So you are telling us that the predicted mean forcing over a century level is refuted because you do not see a continuing increase in the final 20 year period temperature?

Anthropogenic forcings were not dominant at all in the early 20th Century warming, CO2 was barely increasing during this timeframe. The question is for the late-20th Century, is if the warming was forced by mostly natural or anthropogenic sources.

The temperature flatline at 200 hPa covers just about the entire late-20th Century warming timeframe. This is the timeframe where it is under question whether it was forced by mostly human activity or natural causes.

Since there was not a greater warming in the mid to upper troposphere during this timeframe, GHGs could not have been the cause of the recent warming, since this is the unique Greenhouse signature, as predicted by the models.

So you are telling us that the predicted mean forcing over a century level is refuted because you do not see a continuing increase in the final 20 year period temperature?

Anthropogenic forcings were not dominant at all in the early 20th Century warming, CO2 was barely increasing during this timeframe. The question is for the late-20th Century, is if the warming was forced by mostly natural or anthropogenic sources.

The temperature flatline at 200 hPa covers just about the entire late-20th Century warming timeframe. This is the timeframe where it is under question whether it was forced by mostly human activity or natural causes.

Since there was not a greater warming in the mid to upper troposphere during this timeframe, GHGs could not have been the cause of the recent warming, since this is the unique Greenhouse signature, as predicted by the models.

You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?

A large part of the change in the concentration of the GHGs came over the last 50 years, so therefore, we should expect to see the strongest GHG warming pattern over the last warm period.

There has been no GHG warming pattern observed over the last 30 years when we warmed, and greenhouse gas concentrations rapidly rose.

You did read the information on the modle that showed the temperature change per the modle form 1890 to 1999? How do you then claim the model is incorrect when you assume other time periods and also that the total forcings would not have changed?

A large part of the change in the concentration of the GHGs came over the last 50 years, so therefore, we should expect to see the strongest GHG warming pattern over the last warm period.

There has been no GHG warming pattern observed over the last 30 years when we warmed, and greenhouse gas concentrations rapidly rose.

But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.

If GHGs were the dominant forcing, the signature would still be evident even with the contamination of some other forcings, as it is seen with the bottom right hand corner of the IPCC graphic. We should still see the highest warming rates in the middle to upper part of the troposphere in the Tropics.

But that ignores the other factors the model used, doesn't it? It appears to be more of a strawman than not.

If GHGs were the dominant forcing, the signature would still be evident even with the contamination of some other forcings, as it is seen with the bottom right hand corner of the IPCC graphic. We should still see the highest warming rates in the middle to upper part of the troposphere in the Tropics.

That shows a total ignorance of the information presented. It is commonly called a strawman fallacy. It is when you take data and claim it represents something else slightly different, attempt to disprove this new claim and then claim the original statement was thus refuted.

The illustrations were for the temperature change for over a century, and for ALL of the five forcings during that period. You take the information and claim it should be the same for a different period of time without any evidence of the forcings included being the same and try to say the original representation is wrong because it does not show what you claim it should in this new period.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein